Quadro 3000M vs GeForce MX150

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX150 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX150
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
5.88
+128%

MX150 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 128% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking588817
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.20
Power efficiency40.702.38
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGP108GF104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date17 May 2017 (7 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384240
Core clock speed937 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,800 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate24.9118.00
Floating-point processing power0.7972 TFLOPS0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2440

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s80 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.12.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce MX150 5.88
+128%
Quadro 3000M 2.58

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce MX150 2270
+128%
Quadro 3000M 995

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce MX150 4494
+192%
Quadro 3000M 1539

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce MX150 10992
+38.4%
Quadro 3000M 7941

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce MX150 9601
+154%
Quadro 3000M 3784

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD26
−96.2%
51
+96.2%
1440p26
+160%
10−12
−160%
4K18
+157%
7−8
−157%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data7.82
1440pno data39.90
4Kno data56.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
+138%
8−9
−138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8 0−1
Battlefield 5 26
+767%
3−4
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21
+250%
6−7
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+120%
5−6
−120%
Far Cry 5 20
+300%
5−6
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 24
+243%
7−8
−243%
Forza Horizon 4 80
+515%
12−14
−515%
Hitman 3 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100
+400%
20−22
−400%
Metro Exodus 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27
+350%
6−7
−350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
+227%
10−12
−227%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+31.6%
35−40
−31.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21
+163%
8−9
−163%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8 0−1
Battlefield 5 18
+500%
3−4
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry 5 18
+260%
5−6
−260%
Far Cry New Dawn 9
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+446%
12−14
−446%
Hitman 3 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100
+400%
20−22
−400%
Metro Exodus 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+167%
6−7
−167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+300%
12−14
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+31.6%
35−40
−31.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Far Cry 5 12
+140%
5−6
−140%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Hitman 3 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
−25%
20−22
+25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+31.6%
35−40
−31.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+167%
6−7
−167%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+153%
14−16
−153%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 2−3 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
+129%
7−8
−129%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

This is how GeForce MX150 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 3000M is 96% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX150 is 160% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce MX150 is 157% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 1050% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX150 is ahead in 54 tests (95%)
  • Quadro 3000M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.88 2.58
Recency 17 May 2017 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 75 Watt

GeForce MX150 has a 127.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150
NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 1615 votes

Rate GeForce MX150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 48 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.